The World Record Debate

Since all the cool people are talking about it, so will I!

Very recently, the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF), the world governing body for running decided to change their requirements for what constitutes a world record in a road race.  They already have very complicated rules about what constitutes an eligible course and conditions.  This is why Geoffrey Mutai's time of 2:03:02 at the 2011 Boston Marathon is not considered a world record, but only a "world's best."  Since Boston is a point-to-point course, the start and finish lines are too far apart, making the course ineligible for producing world records.

Though it certainly complicates what should be a rather simple sport, there is certainly logical thinking behind the IAAF's world record eligibility rules.  All road races are very different, even ones of identical distance.  Some marathons are known to be tough, while others are known to be fast.  It has everything to do with the course profile and the prevailing conditions at the time (wind, temperature).  Track races on the other hand are much more controlled.  Though track surfaces and weather play a role, all track races are run on the exact same "course," an oval with specific dimensions.

With that said, the IAAF has handed down a very curious decision.  Paula Radcliffe is (or should I say was) the world record holder for the women's marathon with a time of 2:15:25 set at the 2003 London Marathon.  However, the IAAF has deemed that any women's race run in conjunction with a men's race and/or any women that use male pacers cannot be awarded the world record.  Furthermore, the IAAF is going back and rewriting history, taking away any women's road racing world records that were done with the aid of male pacers.  Radcliffe actually still has the world record because she has also run the 2nd and 3rd fastest marathon times ever by a woman.  Her 3rd fastest time of 2:17:42 is now the record.

The fastest women in the world do have an interesting situation.  In a mass start race of men and women, the fastest women will usually be surrounded by 2nd tier men who run near those times.  Low 2:20s in a marathon is lightning fast for a woman, but for a man, it does not even give you a shot to run at the US Olympic Trials.  I have sort of experienced this first hand at the Philly Distance Run a few weeks ago.  My 1:14:44 is decent for an amateur, but I was running alongside women who were going for a spot in the Trials.

The debate is endless as to whether male pacers give women too much of an advantage or help them too much with running faster.  The problem for the top women is that there really are not enough other fast women to help pace them, hence the use of male pacers.  However, the men do not really have this same problem.  The top men will be out front in a mixed race.  Additionally, it is common practice for men to use pacers in their races as seen in the recent world record set in Berlin by Patrick Makau of 2:03:38.  In fact if you watch video, this guy had a literal army of pacers for well over half the race.  The final pacers broke off at the 30K mark, a little over 6 miles before the finish.

It has been pointed out that this is a double standard of sorts.  Women are no longer allowed to use pacers (essentially since female pacers are almost non existent) but yet men are when pursuing world records.  Some of this trouble has been taken care of by many of the large races which these days have the elite women start 45 minutes ahead of the men.  This allows them to run the "women's only" race that the IAAF now requires for world records.

The debate of the fairness of all this and whether a faster male pacer offers too much assistance to a female runner is quite a complicated one.  As a purist, I think it is all BS and it should not matter who paces who.  The bottom line is that the runner still has to be physically capable of running the required pace whether they have a pacer or not.

Regardless, what I truly don't understand is the IAAF's decision to go back and rewrite history.  At the time of Radcliffe's world record, these rules were not in place and everything she did in running that time was legal.  So how can someone rewrite the rules now and then go back and decide that the world record no longer applies?  Had this rule already been in place, I highly doubt Paula Radcliffe would have used a male pacer on a world record eligible course at the pinnacle of her running career.

If the IAAF wants to put this rule in place going forward, then fine I can live with it.  Everyone understands what the rules are and if they want a world record, they have to do it without male pacers.  But, how can you go back and change what was already done?

I guess what we need is another female runner to go and beat Radcliffe's 2:15:25 without male pacers on an eligible course to rub it in the face of the IAAF.